Google doesn’t hold a monopoly over the entire smartphone market, and it doesn’t have the same level of influence globally. But in the two areas where its Android operations have aroused regulatory scrutiny, the United States and Europe, Google enjoys a practical stranglehold over the mobile operating system market – thanks to Apple’s non-participation and Microsoft’s chronic failure to compete. It’s arguable that other tech giants, such as Apple and Amazon, are better subjects for antitrust investigations, but US and European authorities are right to at least consider the circumstances of Google’s relationship with its hardware partners.
I don’t know if Google has a monopoly over the phone market – and neither do you, because the laws regarding monopolies are ambiguous, incredibly complex, and differ per jurisdiction and sometimes even per sector – but I do know that as far as I can tell, Google isn’t blocking anyone from shipping Windows Phone devices, nor is it stopping developers from publishing applications for other platforms or even in other Android application stores, nor does it stop anyone from taking Android’s code and building something that competes with it (see China and Amazon, for instance).
In fact, we should thank Google for building and releasing Android, because without it, iOS would’ve evolved a lot slower, we’d have less choice, and we could’ve even been stuck with just iOS and something from Microsoft – much like on the desktop.
That being said – I’m always in favour of keeping very close tabs on powerful companies like this, and in my view, the Microsofts, Googles, and Apples of this world should always be kept an eye on. Better yet, in an ideal world, all code in our computers and mobile phones should be open – from operating system to firmware – because of how crucial they’ve become to our society, but alas, that will never happen because reasons.
“Google isn’t blocking anyone from shipping Windows Phone devices, nor is it stopping developers from publishing applications for other platforms or even in other Android application stores, nor does it stop anyone from taking Android’s code and building something that competes with it”
Which is not the issue.
The issue is that Google may use its dominant position with Android to distort the competition for OTHER services.
The fact that OEM are forced to install many Google apps if they want Google Play is the problem I would say.
I tend to agree with this, but probably not for the reasons you think. The thing I hate most about this is when you have like three web browsers on the system by default, where you don’t want to use any of them, and can’t uninstall any of them. So you download another one (Dolphin) in my case, and now you’ve got four.
I just got a Samsung tablet (because there really aren’t any other decent Android tablets I can demo in person), and I swear… Samsung thinks they have to include an alternative for just about every default Google app, that NOBODY WANTS!!!
Edited 2015-09-25 19:46 UTC
It’s a far cry from what Apple does, at least you have th choice of installing a new Android system without Google services. iOS doesn’t even allow their users to select their own default apps, how has this gone unnoticed by government agencies absolutely alludes me. The European Union went after Microsoft for bundling in Internet Explorer with XP, at least with Windows you can select a different browser as your default. I don’t see a problem with Google requiring OEM’s to install Google services if they want to bundle Google’s Playstore with their phones, again, the user has the choice of using these apps. These OEM’s are free to use other solutions if they don’t like this. They could even make their own store, like Amazon has done, they have choices where as Apple offers none, who is the real monopoly here.
Why do you feel the need to bring Apple in this story?
Apple is not dominant in the mobile market while Google is.
It isn’t even that, the biggest problem is Google using its dominance in many parts of the online world to maintain Android’s dominance in the smartphone market. For example, can third parties make a YouTube application? sure, but it’ll be half assed and half baked when compared to the secret API’s that Google is privileged to meaning that any operating system that tries to go up against Android is either faced with creating a crippled third party version when compared to the one created by Google or they have to try and go up against Google by recreating those services from the ground up. If there was an easy solution it would be forcing Google to either open up all their API specifications and mandate that no Google applications (on desktop, smart phone or tablet) can use secret API’s thus all applications are on the same level or force Google to provide all the applications they provide for iOS and Android on Windows Mobile 10 as well.
Edited 2015-09-27 05:36 UTC
Or the user just goes to http://youtube.com instead on their platform of choice through the browser?
Why should Google open the API from their websites to their applications, any more than my bank opens up it’s API from online banking to its banking app?
It isn’t like it hasn’t happened before that a company was forced to properly document their API’s and protocols because of their market position.
EU forced Microsoft to document all their APIs and protocols:
http://www.toptechnews.com/article/index.php?story_id=121009GB25BY
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecifications/default
(now I can still find stuff Microsoft didn’t document, but it’s gotten a lot better)
I do think there is a big difference, when Microsoft was forced to this the APIs and protocols were all about running software locally.
In your case it’s about Google services, this means if you open up the APIs to allow for more competition. You aren’t going to get the same effects. Because Google will still get the data.
If you really want to open things up you’d need to force Google to create a system which allows existing apps to connect to other services.
(obviously kind of silly, because why would Google keep funding Android development ?)
Edited 2015-09-28 18:19 UTC
“Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge‘s_law_of_headlines
If Android didn’t exist, we’d probably still have maemo based phones, or maybe Tizen would have evolved faster, if Nokia had opened up their app store and had concentrated on Maemo/MeeGo, instead of ditchimg them in favor of Windows Phone and having so many people cry for an Android phone from them, they would still be the huge company they used to be. Apple would have stagnated long enough for eith Symbian or Maemo to catch up and surpass them, and with the more open source base could’ve been the ‘android’ of today.
Google has the perfect defense – the Amazon Fire phone. That is an Android phone that shipped with zero Google apps.
And, duh, Google has to have a rule like this. Otherwise every OEM would make their own app store so that they could appropriate Google’s 30% cut without doing a lick of their own work.
Edited 2015-09-25 20:38 UTC
Again, this is not the issue.
The question is not whether anybody is free to make an Android phone without Google apps.
Google’s Android is dominant. The question is then whether Google uses its position to promote its OTHER businesses against its competitors.
Whether Google search engine, Google ad business, Gmail, Google Drive and other services get a competitive advantage because Google force OEM to install them on their smartphones if they want Google Play.
It is about protecting companies which would like to offer cloud services, messaging apps, mail clients and such on Android phones against the obvious advantage Google has to have all its own apps pre-installed because OEMs have no choice.
It is impossible to split Google Play from the Google Apps without causing the whole ecosystem to collapse. That’s because splitting them is a two way street. You want to keep Google Play but remove the Google Apps. But there are many people that want to go the other way – keep the the Google Apps and replace Google Play. I don’t see how you can split these without allowing replacements in both directions.
If OEMs are allowed to replace Google Play and keep the Google Apps, they will immediately do it to steal the large revenue stream while contributing nothing to the software development. The Google Apps are the reward they get for not replacing Google Play.
If you want to pre-install all of your own basic apps you need to do what Amazon and Xiaomi did, make your own app store and replace everything.
Beside, nothing stops you from installing the competing apps.
Exactly, well said.
Then try to claim Google has a monopoly on Google Play, not on Android.
Android as a platform doesn’t really exist anymore. It is developed only to support Google services, not in its own right. If you start the sdk emulator you’ll see what Android is and it is nothing like what you see on modern phones. It is a shame because the openess was what made Android the dominent OS. But also lead to the fracturing.
If the Android apps has been published with a different license perhaps not all phone producer were compeled to fork them.
The questions that have to be asked:
1. Does Google have dominance over the “Smart Phone” market?
2. Did Google obtain said dominance illegally?
The answers:
1. No
2. No
We’re done.
BTW, requiring companies to include a selection of Google apps to be able to use the “Android” trademark is patently normal in every industry. Android, after-all, is a collection of software, not an operating system:
Android:
Linux Kernel
Android RTE & API (Dalvik/ART)
Google Android Apps Collection
That is Android.
Anyone who wishes to use any part of that without the other cannot call it “Android,” but are absolutely free to do so.
Google got its market positioning by being the superior choice. They control more of the market than Apple, which offers a totally locked-down experience – from the hardware to the software, merely by being a superior choice.
You are not absolutely free to fork Android and call it something else. Why do you think Samsung haven’t done it long ago?
Yes, you are. The code’s a mix of Apache licensed code (Android), the GPL (Linux), and a bunch of other licenses for smaller parts.
It’s completely open, and you’re free to fork it. Like the name “Linux”, though, the name “Android” is NOT free.
Edited 2015-09-26 20:19 UTC
Too bad it is the wrong question or answer.
The question are:
1. Does Google have dominance over the mobile phone market.
2. Does Google use this dominance to get a competitive advantage for another market,
The answers:
1. Yes
2. Yes
We are done.
BTW, your second answer seems clearly contradictory with your first answer.
Edited 2015-09-26 22:28 UTC
Actually, that is the question under investigation. Stating it as a fact, means that you have a predefined opinion.
“Mobile phone market” includes feature phones and dumb phones, which I’m pretty sure don’t include phones running Android or Google apps and services.
There are legitimate claims regarding monopoly practices that should be addressed. Just conflating market dominance with a monopoly position does nothing to help solve these issues. In fact it makes people assume that most claims of monopoly are just hyperbole. If Google did have monopoly powers, then you could bet that the Android fracturing problem wouldn’t be what it is today. They simply don’t have that kind of control over the platform.
it surely holds a huge market share, to the point that getting drivers for regular glibc Linux is close to impossible (unless we are talking about manufacturers who produce open drivers, like Intel). Ask Jolla about it. It’s the main reason why they had to use libhybris.
Edited 2015-09-25 21:23 UTC
Apple doesn’t exactly unbundle their apps, do they?
If I walk into a T-Mobile store looking for a phone, the first thing they say is “Can I interest you in an iPhone?”, even when Android is outselling apple. That sounds like an exclusionary agreement.
If I go to Bestbuy looking for a car stereo, the stereos all support iPhone really well, but not Android, and I really doubt it’s because Google/Samsung/HTC etc aren’t trying.
When new apps are released, they’re almost always released for iPhone first, Android second. And this is because the app creators are afraid of retaliation by Apple.
Edited 2015-09-25 21:42 UTC
Apple worldwide market share is only 15% compared to 80% for Android. See the difference?
And in case you missed it, Apple also gets some attention from US authorities.
Now, concerning your examples where you think that Apple is somehow forcing car manufacturers, mobile operators or app developers to promote the iPhone more than Android smartphones, I will give you a clue: it is not about Apple forcing such behavior, it is about such behavior being commercially beneficial for those companies because iOS users are spending more money than Android users. Apple’s ecosystem is simply more attractive for third party companies.
Edited 2015-09-25 22:31 UTC
And it is commercially beneficial for Android OEMs to ship Google Android, and not Frankendroid.
Yet you claim the latter is an antitrust violation, even though it’s been expressly stated as a requirement for membership of the OHA since its inception in 2007 (!).
Investigating Google for rules expressly laid out by the OHA in 2007 and which companies became members of of their own volition, is insanity – especially since these rules are the single best thing to happen to Android. The OHA no-forks clause is the sole reason Android has become such a diverse, yet coherent platform powering everything from watches all the way to PCs and other crazy shit, with, despite claims to the contrary and especially taking into the account the breadth of Android-powered devices, outstanding compatibility.
Asking Google to remove the no-forks clause from the OHA requirements (which is crazy enough as it is, since Google != OHA) would mean the end of Android. This, in turn, makes it VERY clear to me who is lobbying for these antritrust investigations.
However Apple is the most profitable, making more money than every Android manufacture combined, so market share really doesn’t matter. Also, 80% of all Android phones sold are under a cheap prepaid phones that are under a 100 dollars. If Apple made a prepaid phone for under a 100 bucks they would own this market as well. They will never do it though because there just isn’t any money in it.
“so market share really doesn’t matter.”
The story is about antitrust regulation which is all about volume market share.
“If Apple made a prepaid phone for under a 100 bucks they would own this market as well. ”
But the don’t and doesn’t own this market.
Rules are made for what is, not for what could be,
Edited 2015-09-26 22:17 UTC
No one is afraid of retaliation by Apple. That’s just absurd. I’ve worked with numerous media companies of all sizes on their apps. In almost all cases they look at their mobile web traffic and chose which platforms to support based on their existing audience – it just so happens that in the US that’s often iOS but plenty of EU companies will chose Android as their lead platform.
Honestly most companies would be extatic if Apple cared enough to even talk to them, much less make any demands of them.
Even if apple did all the things you claim it would still not prompt regulators to investigate because Apple does not have market dominance in the mobile market. That’s key here. If your a domainant market player you have a legal obligation not to use that dominance to force your customers to use your other products. If you don’t have market dominance you can. It’s as simple as that.
Taken from this article
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android…
This makes life extremely difficult for the only company brazen enough to sell an Android fork in the west: Amazon. Since the Kindle OS counts as an incompatible version of Android, no major OEM is allowed to produce the Kindle Fire for Amazon.
It doesn’t matter if anyone else is allowed to use it or not. The market has been pretty clear that not enough people even want Kindle Fire devices for OEMs other than Amazon to even bother.
Amazon just gutted their mobile devices division because people aren’t buying any version of their devices outside of the e-readers.
Bing is nowhere really.
The verb ‘To Google’ is accepted.
The search gives them Advertising $$$$$ plus huge amounts of Mined Data about you.
Then if you add in Android you have an even bigger walled garden than Apple. I say walled garden because it is in Google’s interest to create an environment for you so that you to never need do anything on the internet without Google taking either a slice of the revenue from apps or via Advertising that hits your device in ever increasing amounts. GMail, Google Search, Google Apps, Android Phone etc etc
It is far harder for normal folk to avoid using Google in some shape or form than it is with Apple or Microsoft.
I still use Google but via an anonymizer. I killed my GMail and Google.com accounts years ago. Why do I do this when they offer so much for ‘Free’.
With Google you are the product. The product to be data mined and receive advertising. They know something about all of us. Big Brother Lite.
I intend to keep what they know about me to a minimum.
The less they know the less they will be able to try to influence my life.
The other ‘Evil’ empire is Apple (naturally). MS has slipped down the pecking order in recent years due to repeated FootGun episodes.
I can get by in life perfectly well without coming into contact with Apple. I choose to use a MacBook Pro because it is the best tool available for what I want it to do. Do I use appleMail, iCloud, iTunes, App Store etc etc? Yes but only iCloud for temporary stuff.
The rest is just not on my Radar. I use Firefox and Thunderbird for Web and Email.
So I keep my interaction with Apple to what I call a reasonable level.
It is up to us users to decide how much we allow ourselves to interact with these MegaCorps, how much data they have on each and everyone of us and in the end, how much influence they have over our lives.
If we wait for the Politicians to decide then the lobbyists in DC will make sure that if never happens.
US Politicians are AFAIK willing to sell themselves to the highesr bidder. After all they have re-election campaigns to fund don’t they. The EU might be a bit more fleet of foot but I would not count on some member states deciding to do their own thing. I’m looking at you La Belle France.
Take responsibility for your own life and don’t leave it up to the Politicians.
I just opted out all together and went with Blackberry Passport. It’s a fantastic phone that has everything I could possibly want. I’m also going to grab a new Lumia phone when Microsoft finally releases the 945 XL with Continuum as that’s something I’ve wanted in a smartphone since m first one, the Nokia 9500 Communicator. I’m done with Android phones and the iPhone is just lacking to many features that I refuse to live without.
Duopoly is not a monopoly. And also it is hard to beat free, so android is not subject to monopoly law unless they demand payment.
If a charity solves Malaria thourgh vaccination, it is most definitely not a monopoly on malaria medication, only a moron would think that.
If there were no Android, then possibly other open source platforms like MeeGo/Tizen could have emerged as the winners. Maybe even Blackberry had a better shot with their BB10. They would suite me better, as Android usability isn’t to my taste and Google’s design guidelines are poor too.
But they’ve blocked genuine attempts to deliver apps for their services on the WP platform ([cough]YouTube app from Microsoft[/cough]), plus they didn’t provide them in the first instance. What Microsoft did with Windows for Explorer in the late nineties, they did with Google Services for Android in recent years. They’re not any better…
No. Microsoft did not adhere to the licensing terms. That’s all there was to it. Google literally gave Microsoft permission to make a YouTube app, and Microsoft did so – but it violated the licensing terms (I think related to ads or downloading videos), and as such, it had to be taken down.
Which is entirely Microsoft’s own stupid fault. It reeked of Microsoft intentionally trying to create a stink.
That’s one of the stories I’ve always heard about. But it seems those “terms” have never been clearly explained (your reply, too, states that you “think” it’s related to ads or downloading videos) and it seems to me this is only Google’s version, where said vague “terms” have effectively been used to enforce takedown of the app.
That is, one more evidence of the fact they have cheated.
Your mistaken about this. Googles licensing terms for YouTube are very developer unfriendly – you can’t serve videos outside of an html component or official sdk.
Microsoft tried to work within the spirit of the terms but Google blocked them and the YouTube app they could have within the terms Google offered would have sucked.
I am no fan of Microsoft but this was all Google, it wasn’t a ‘big bad Microsoft’ thing.
IIRC the Youtube app for Windows Phone had quality issues that Google objected to which has a direct impact on its website. I also would not expect Google to support an OS that has such a tiny market share as Windows Phone. That said, there is no rule saying Microsoft, Blackberry, etc can’t create their own version of Play, create their own app store on top of Android… oh wait… already been tried and almost no one wanted it!
The question has already been answered. Google does have a dominant position inside Android’s ecosystem just as Apple is dominant inside iOS. However, Google isn’t abusing their position because customers have voted and continuously vote that they want Google’s services (Play, Maps, Gmail, Hangouts, etc) over the OEM’s offering. Customers don’t want the OEM versions, they want Google’s software.
This is in contrast to Apple’s position in which Apple has a policy of blocking and removing any third party apps that “duplicate functionality” with its own built in applications.
There is a quantitative and qualitative difference between the two. Google has a defacto market dominance because none of its competitors for services offer competing services enough people want to disturb its market position. Apple has market dominance in iOS because its rules for participation in iOS block any direct competition. And Apple continues to tighten those rules. The first, under US law anyway, doesn’t violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Apple, on the other hand, may very well violate anti-trust principles in the US, depending on how the monopoly is defined by the courts: narrowly on a platform market, or broadly in the mobile market as a whole.
Using monopolistic practices is not the same as having a monopoly.
As has been said, is Google leveraging its dominant position to unduly promote other businesses.
We’ve seen this play through with Microsoft and the browser wars and other issues.
I tend to find you don’t want to look at being a monopoly as being wrong or even any action (bundling…) as intrinsically wrong. You want to look at it as certain things become problematic when you are in a dominant position.
As a simple example, Google search seems to be well integrated into my Android phone. It just came that way. Maybe that is promoting Google’s search service?
If the powers that be decide this is too much power and influence by Google, maybe they decide that Android vendors must offer a choice of search widget on first run or something like that. Who knows.